Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    Yays & Nays: Roll call Amendment 3018 to the NDAA. Senate's NDAA Amendment Passed

    theres a HELL of a lot of Republicans in the NAY Column...


    www.ConservativeActionAlerts.com · 6,768 like this
    November 29 at 9:19pm

    BIG NEWS: The Senate's NDAA Amendment Passed!

    Here is the roll call for Amendment 3018 to the NDAA. The amendment reinforces the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, to ensure that American citizens cannot held indefinitely without trial. The amendment passed 67-29.

    NAY’s :
    Ayotte (R-NH)
    Brown (R-MA)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Wicker (R-MS)

    YEA’s:
    Akaka (D-HI)
    Alexander (R-TN)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Begich (D-AK)
    Bennet (D-CO)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Blumenthal (D-CT)
    Blunt (R-MO)
    Boozman (R-AR)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cantwell (D-WA)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Carper (D-DE)
    Casey (D-PA)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Durbin (D-IL)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Hagan (D-NC)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hoeven (R-ND)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Johnson (D-SD)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Klobuchar (D-MN)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Landrieu (D-LA)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Levin (D-MI)
    McCain (R-AZ)
    McCaskill (D-MO)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nelson (D-FL)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Shaheen (D-NH)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Stabenow (D-MI)
    Tester (D-MT)
    Udall (D-CO)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Warner (D-VA)
    Webb (D-VA)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)

    (Via Rand Paul)


    BIG NEWS: The... | Facebook


    Graham (R-SC)
    McCain (R-AZ)

    even these 2 goof balls were smart enough to jump ship after the stinker they made on the Senate Floor

    Last edited by AirborneSapper7; 12-04-2012 at 06:06 AM.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Sen. Paul Declares Victory for Americans’ Right to Trial by Jury

    by Moira Bagley on November 29, 2012


    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on Amendment No. 3018 to the National Defense Authorization Act sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and co-sponsored by Sen. Rand Paul, which protects the rights prescribed to Americans in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution with regard to indefinite detention and the right to a trial by jury.

    The amendment passed, 67-29.

    Moments before the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to again voice his support for the amendment and inspire his colleagues to do the same. Below is video and transcript of his floor speech.



    112912 Sen. Rand Paul floor speech in defense of the Sixth Amendment - YouTube


    TRANSCRIPT:

    I want to congratulate my colleagues on — even though they appear to sometimes have disdain to the trial by jury, to now appear to be supporting the right to trial by jury. And I congratulate them on their conversion. I think they’re still a little bit confused on Hamdi.

    Hamdi had to do with the citizen fighting overseas and nothing to do with the citizen here. I have great confidence that the Supreme Court, given a ruling on the right to trial by jury, will affirm the right to trial by jury whether they were appointed by Ronald Reagan or President Obama. So we’ll have that fight on another day. I will say, though, that our oath of office says that we will defend the Constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.

    I met with cadets this week and they asked me about, ‘what is the freedom we fight for?’ The freedom we fight for is the Bill of Rights, it is the Constitution. If we have careless disregard for the Constitution, what are we fighting for?

    I will tell you since I know this record of this debate will be widely read, that I want to make former objection to the crazy bastards standard. I don’t really think that if we’re going to have a crazy bastard standard that we shouldn’t have a right to trial by jury, because if we’re going to lock up all the crazy bastards, for goodness sakes – would you not want if you’re a crazy bastard to have a right to trial by jury?

    I think this is a very serious debate and should not be made frivolous. This is an ancient right that we have defended for 800 years, for goodness sakes. To say that habeas is due process is absurd. It’s the beginning of due process. If you don’t have a right to trial by jury, you do not have due process. You do not have a Constitution.

    What are you fighting against and for if you throw the Constitution out? If you throw the Sixth Amendment out? It’s in the body of our Constitution. It’s in the Bill of Rights. It’s in every constitution in the United States. For goodness sakes, the trial by jury has been a long-standing and ancient and noble right. For goodness sakes, let’s not scrap it now.

    I will accept victory today. I hope we will win victory and reaffirm the right to trial by jury, but let’s don’t play any games with any aspect and really believe that any Supreme Court in the United States, whether appointed by a Republican or a Democrat, is going to say that an American citizen does not have a right to trial by jury.

    Tagged as: Feinstein-Lee Amendment, habeas corpus, NDAA, Right to Trial

    Sen. Paul Declares Victory for Americans
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    let me say that again... This group of People is SCREAMING

    "FIRE ME"

    They have NO Problem throwing out the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, due process, trial by jury, and the Sixth Amendment



    NAY’s :
    Ayotte (R-NH)
    Brown (R-MA)
    Burr (R-NC)
    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Johanns (R-NE)
    Johnson (R-WI)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lieberman (ID-CT)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Nelson (D-NE)
    Portman (R-OH)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Rubio (R-FL)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Thune (R-SD)
    Toomey (R-PA)
    Vitter (R-LA)
    Wicker (R-MS)

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #4
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696


    Clarifying the Feinstein-Lee Amendment to Protect Americans Against Indefinite Detention

    by Senator Mike Lee on December 4, 2012

    With the passage of the Feinstein-Lee amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), we took an important step forward in the cause of ending indefinite detention of Americans. For more than a year, I have worked closely with Senator Feinstein on legislation that would protect Americans’ due process rights and ensure that American citizens and permanent legal residents apprehended on American soil may not be detained without charge or trial. Our amendment garnered overwhelmingly bipartisan support — including from strong civil libertarians such as myself, Sen. Rand Paul, and Sen. Jim DeMint.

    A few who share our commitment to civil liberties have expressed concern that the amendment will not in fact accomplish what it is designed to do. I would like to set the record straight.

    The amendment provides: “An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”

    It is the last clause – “unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention“ – that has been the source of confusion to some friends of individual liberty. They worry that the 2012 NDAA (or perhaps even an earlier Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF)) could be read to provide such an express authorization and thereby satisfy the high bar set forth in our amendment.

    In reality, neither the AUMF nor the 2012 NDAA did any such thing. The AUMF contains only broad language giving the President authority to use force against those involved in the 9/11 attacks and does not speak directly to the issue of detention. The 2012 NDAA, which I voted against, provides that the military may detain certain persons under the law of war. But that law also contains an important provision—one we were careful to include in the law—to ensure that the NDAA could not be construed by either the President or the courts as expressly authorizing detention of Americans apprehended on U.S. soil. This provision states: “Nothing in [the NDAA] shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

    Because neither the AUMF nor any other law enacted before the 2012 NDAA expressly authorized the detention of Americans apprehended on U.S. soil, and the NDAA cannot be construed to provide the President additional authority with respect to detaining those persons, the Feinstein-Lee amendment accomplishes its purpose and will prohibit detention of Americans apprehended on U.S. soil.

    In fact, because the 2012 NDAA did not expressly authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens, the last clause of the Feinstein-Lee amendment is actually critical to enforcing it. No law has expressly authorized indefinite detention of Americans apprehended on U.S. soil, and our amendment ensures that the administration cannot use either the AUMF or the 2012 NDAA to do so.

    This is a clear victory for civil libertarians and should be celebrated as a strong step forward in protecting due process rights for all Americans.


    Tagged as: emily bennion, Feinstein-Lee Amendment to NDAA, Lee-Feinstein Amendment, mike lee, National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA

    Clarifying the Feinstein-Lee Amendment to Protect Americans Against Indefinite Detention
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •